Melanie_

Semantics again, I know, but I just need to point out...... It surprises me when people get morally outraged when they realize that they can be the victim, not just the perpetrator, of racism. Its like they are saying, "Hey, wait a minute, I'm supposed to have the upper hand here, what happened?" When you use the terms "reverse discrimination" or "reverse racism", you are implying that racism and discrimination are expected to only go one way, and it is unusual to see it coming the other way. That's simply not true. Everyone has biases, and acting on those biases (discriminating) at some point or other is common to every human. Discrimination and racism can't be "reverse", they can just be what they are; a true definition of "reverse racism" would be total inclusion and tolerance for all races.

Obsidian, you might be interested in this thread. Liberty or Security

Mon dieu! Nous avons assez de malentendus en anglais au sujet de le Moyen-Orient!

If half of all pregnancies are unintended, women who choose to abort are no more sexually irresponsible than those who don't - although I'm not advocating any of us sit in judgment. My point to Geoffrey was that contraception use isn't a guarantee against pregnancy, and unexpected pregnancies aren't always the result of irresponsible behaviour.

You are assuming that people who get pregnant didn't use birth control. Many pregnancies happen when birth control fails. Doctors often neglect to tell women that antibiotics will interfere with their birth control pills; condoms break; dosage requirements change but are not recognized quickly enough; vasectomies are unsuccessful; and of course, there's the rhythm method. There is a myth of sexual irresponsibility that surrounds women who have abortions. For the most part, they are no different from anyone else who has sex on a regular basis - they're just the ones the law of averages caught up with.

Your missing one, Canuck E Stan. I saw a StevenBush earlier today on the board, who was banned so fast most people probably missed him/her. Hopefully when the next banning inevitably happens, he/she will get the message and go find another board that is short of a troll.

I think it goes beyond what people remember about us in a conscious sense. It also includes the intangible; it's an intergenerational memory that doesn't have a fixed recollection of one's antecedents, but yet is informed and influenced by them regardless. This can be a good or a bad thing - I often show a video in the Child Abuse course I teach that talks about tracing the history of abuse back 200 years, even though the players today are unaware of the history of their family. Patterns are repeated generation after generation. We each take that responsibility, willingly or not, when we have children. This is not to say none of us are capable of change. However, I think that in order to interrupt any pattern that we are unwilling to continue, we need to understand it and deliberately choose another path.

One of JT's singular attributes is his ability to inspire discussion, controversy, and political debate. Witness on this thread, Crazy Canuck, a member of MLW since June 22, 2005, making his/her 39th post, and munsinger, a member since February 1, 2006, making his/her 8th post. Of all the topics on this forum, JT has brought people who lurk, but do not post, out of the shadows. What will he do for the nation at large? BTW, CC and munsinger, I'm not trying to discourage your participation! I hope to hear more of your ideas!

I am all in favour of providing financial assistance to families. Even better, reduce their taxes by $1200/year in the first place, for every child under the age of 6, rather than giving cash out each month then raking it back as taxable income at the end of the year (Yikes! I think I've been possessed by Charles Anthony!) But the real issue isn't the cost of care, it is the availablility of high quality care - families need somewhere to spend the money, and it isn't good enough to just let the first available stranger warehouse your child in their basement all day. Good care is hard to find; people who work with children need patience, humour, sensitivity, a good understanding of child development, the openness to work with diverse families, guidance/discipline skills that take into account children's developing self esteem, and the ability to see the world through the eyes of a child. Child care is very different from taking care of your own children, as caregivers need to respect the choices of all the parents they work with, and find a way to balance those while caring for many children. The burnout rate is high, as is the rate of people just deciding the job is too stressful for slightly over minimum wage. I see the role of a government child care strategy to be creating and maintaining spaces through assistance in start up costs, regulating centres and family child care homes, and ensuring there are training standards met by the people who work with young children. Small operating grants and a sliding subsidy scale could help offset the cost of care, but the parents should still pay the bulk of the costs.

I'm having a hard time with this thread, because I am unclear about what is being asked. Strength and effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing. Who is the strongest leader? I'll say Harper. Who is the most effective leader, as the thread title says? Not Harper. He uses his strength to keep everyone in check, but I don't think that really speaks to his effectiveness. Dion hasn't had enough time yet to really show what he is capable of. I don't know a great deal about Duceppe. Layton does his job, which is to stir the pot whenever he can, and advance his party's agenda while in a position of limited power.

Your link to is to a website that promotes Islam, and refers to Islamic countries based on their own interpretation of what that is. That interpretation is completely subjective. And the groups you have listed aren't countries; they are terrorist organizations. They might be found in certain countries, but they don't represent those countries on the international stage. You haven't supported your point, if you have one, at all.

Care to explain this practical plan? So far, no spaces have been created, and no plan has been outlined for how they will be created in the future. There is some vague idea that businesses will jump on board, but none seem to be interested. I have posted this link and quote before, but it seems relevent again. Making Space for Child Care I have no beef with giving parents cash, but lets be realistic. It isn't a child care plan.

WikipediaThis link lists countries by the percentage of population that are Muslim (scroll down to the bottom for the top 60). Please take a look at the list, and identify which "Islamic nations" you are referring to.

Again, it is great when parents are able to stay at home, mothers or fathers - I apologize for coming across as sexist. It is far more common, however, for mothers to take that path. It is even more common today for families to require some form of out of home care for their children. Why is it so bad for government to take on a role in ensuring that whatever form of care is available meets the minimum standards for children's safety and well being? This doesn't equal institutionalized brain washing - people who work in child care centres aren't sent to some programming camp to tell them how to shape the "citizens of the future." Its more likely they enter the field because they love children and want to make a difference in their lives, and are willing to do so for lousy wages, few benefits, and little respect from the public at large.

Public (read "government") daycare is run by parent boards of directors, who determine what policies and curriculum their own centre will follow. Parents are free to choose among many different philosophies offered by licensed child care centres - there is no "institutionalized" brainwashing involved. Parents have much more input into public child care facilities than they do into private, or for profit, centres. I stand by the statement that saying that all parents (read "mothers") should stay at home is a narrow perspective. Can I assume you are male, Borg?

Saying that people who want kids should stay at home and look after them is a very narrow perspective. Life happens, and even those who think they will be at home until their kids start school are often surprised by the twists their roads take. No one is saying that all kids should be in daycare - its great to be in a position to be at home, and many kids benefit from having stay at home moms or dads. But for those kids who do go to daycare, high quality care is the next best thing. I don't expect the government to pay the costs of child care, unless the parents are really low income, but I do think the government should be involved in regulating the quality of programs available to children. Giving parents $100 and saying "find something" is a cop out.

Please. As a left leaning regular poster, I don't want BayLee's comments to be confused with reasonable dialogue.

I hope I'm misreading this statement, Geoffrey. Female managers and execs are the women that add value to our society? Are you suggesting that other women do not? Some women will choose to stay home with their children, and others will choose to work. But the children should have a safe, secure, accessible, nurturing environment either way. Parents can and do pay for the care; this isn't the issue. But the care available should be of high quality. $100/month doesn't do anything to create spaces, and Harper's plan to create 25,000 spaces per year is just hot air at this point - he has no clue how to go about doing this.

I don't know if the families are paying him, but they definitely get some value from it. Whenever Karla Homolka pops up in the news, the media wants some sort of statement from the families - its much better for them to go through the lawyer than to have to speak themselves. The element of this story that is, IMHO, the bigger issue is the nurses who refused to assist in the delivery of the baby. No matter what their personal feelings on the case are, they can't turn away a patient in need. Canada.com

BayLee, sit down before you hurt yourself. Until you can see women in politics as having worthwhile contributions to make, devoid of sexual implications, you can't possibly be taken seriously. Would you suggest that, if Bush were to compliment Canada and MacKay comment on it, they too would immediately be hopping into bed? I'm no fan of any of these players, but I find your statements offensive.

Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". His premise is that it is all a government conspiracy (of course!) to always keep the masses looking to the politicians and lawyers to keep them safe. In that book, the apocalyptic destiny is global warming, but it could just as easily be any of the ones you've listed. Pop culture reflecting social worries, or determining them?

Of course people called up all day and said they lost respect for Suzuki. Talk radio hosts like Oakley create a climate of group think around their own viewpoints; anyone who disagrees with them is quickly buzzed off the air with a dismissive comment about how they are "uninformed", implying that those who agree with the host are "informed". Calling up and saying you agree with a talk radio host is simply a sad attempt to be part of the "in crowd".

My question wasn't about funding the abortion, but funding the special needs of the child when the mother has had the test, knows her child will be born with Down Syndrome, and chooses to continue the pregnancy. I don't want to speak for you, but my understanding of your position leads me to believe that you would say the parents should pay for any special support needs the child may have. Since you advocate for all services to be privatized, I don't really have an issue with you including these services with the rest, as that would be consistent (although I hope that at least there would be private insurance available to help with the costs in this vision of yours). I wonder though about the pressure that might come from others who do endorse a public system, but would balk at having their tax dollars going to support the needs of someone whose parents could have chosen to abort, but did not.

This thread is not for the squeamish.

Before anyone challenges GostHacked on this one, I feel compelled to say that none of my body parts have ever appeared in a magazine. I don't know if the magazine buying masses would ever recover.